Quote Originally Posted by lardy View Post
You're right there. You have to be suspicious of a 'trial' where more than half the jurors have said they have made their minds up already and refuse to listen to witnesses and refuse to see new evidence.
what I dont, get why bring new evidence to the for now ,surely they had it already , it cant just have popped out of nowhere, of course witnesses should be allowed, including the whistle blower ,where is he/she , who is he /she , surely they have to collaborate and anything as important as this , need the hard facts no hearsay ??

Apparently the whistleblower admitted that they were “not a direct witness to most of the events described,” but were rather “informed” of these various facts by “more than half a dozen U.S. officials” in the course of their work , that is a bit weak , any lawyer would shoot that down ???

There's crap on both sides flying around if you ask me .